-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I experimented with SyncCE; after starting IrDA I got this:
Serial: 8250/16550 driver $Revision: 1.90 $ 4 ports, IRQ sharing enabled
serial8250: ttyS0 at I/O 0x3f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
00:09: ttyS0 at I/O 0x3f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.19-rc5-2avb #2
- ---------------------------------------------
pppd/26425 is trying to acquire lock:
(&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170
[irda]
but task is already holding lock:
(&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170
[irda]
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by pppd/26425:
#0: (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>]
irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170 [irda]
stack backtrace:
[<c010413c>] dump_trace+0x1cc/0x200
[<c010418a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
[<c01047f2>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
[<c01048c9>] dump_stack+0x19/0x20
[<c01346ca>] __lock_acquire+0x8fa/0xc20
[<c0134d2d>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x80
[<c02a851c>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170 [irda]
[<dfdebab2>] irlmp_open_lsap+0x62/0x180 [irda]
[<dfdf35d1>] irttp_open_tsap+0x181/0x230 [irda]
[<dfdc0c3d>] ircomm_open_tsap+0x5d/0xa0 [ircomm]
[<dfdc05d8>] ircomm_open+0xb8/0xd0 [ircomm]
[<dfdd0477>] ircomm_tty_open+0x4f7/0x570 [ircomm_tty]
[<c020bbe4>] tty_open+0x174/0x340
[<c016bd69>] chrdev_open+0x89/0x170
[<c0167bd6>] __dentry_open+0xa6/0x1d0
[<c0167da5>] nameidata_to_filp+0x35/0x40
[<c0167df9>] do_filp_open+0x49/0x50
[<c0167e47>] do_sys_open+0x47/0xd0
[<c0167f0c>] sys_open+0x1c/0x20
[<c010307d>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
[<b7f86410>] 0xb7f86410
=======================
This apparently happens when irattach is run. Interface itself (irda0) is
created as far as I can tell.
Please let me know if additional information is required.
- -andrey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFXwbDR6LMutpd94wRAiUpAJwIK5hSusOwFUloh0jXOb5hk5iVwgCfX7Iq
c5kRWItPWR9WGw4jORPd21k=
=oax8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 16:12 +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.19-rc5-2avb #2
> - ---------------------------------------------
> pppd/26425 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170
> [irda]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170
> [irda]
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by pppd/26425:
> #0: (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>]
> irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170 [irda]
>
> stack backtrace:
> [<c010413c>] dump_trace+0x1cc/0x200
> [<c010418a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> [<c01047f2>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
> [<c01048c9>] dump_stack+0x19/0x20
> [<c01346ca>] __lock_acquire+0x8fa/0xc20
> [<c0134d2d>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x80
> [<c02a851c>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170 [irda]
> [<dfdebab2>] irlmp_open_lsap+0x62/0x180 [irda]
> [<dfdf35d1>] irttp_open_tsap+0x181/0x230 [irda]
> [<dfdc0c3d>] ircomm_open_tsap+0x5d/0xa0 [ircomm]
> [<dfdc05d8>] ircomm_open+0xb8/0xd0 [ircomm]
> [<dfdd0477>] ircomm_tty_open+0x4f7/0x570 [ircomm_tty]
> [<c020bbe4>] tty_open+0x174/0x340
> [<c016bd69>] chrdev_open+0x89/0x170
> [<c0167bd6>] __dentry_open+0xa6/0x1d0
> [<c0167da5>] nameidata_to_filp+0x35/0x40
> [<c0167df9>] do_filp_open+0x49/0x50
> [<c0167e47>] do_sys_open+0x47/0xd0
> [<c0167f0c>] sys_open+0x1c/0x20
> [<c010307d>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
> [<b7f86410>] 0xb7f86410
> =======================
The comment at the nesting lock says:
/* Careful for priority inversions here !
* irlmp->links is never taken while another IrDA
* spinlock is held, so we are safe. Jean II */
So, under the assumption the author was right, it just needs a lockdep
annotation.
(depends on patches in -mm for spin_lock_irqsave_nested())
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
---
net/irda/irlmp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-mm.orig/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 09:54:50.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 09:57:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@ static int irlmp_slsap_inuse(__u8 slsap_
* every IrLAP connection and check every LSAP associated with each
* the connection.
*/
- spin_lock_irqsave(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags);
+ spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags, 1);
lap = (struct lap_cb *) hashbin_get_first(irlmp->links);
while (lap != NULL) {
IRDA_ASSERT(lap->magic == LMP_LAP_MAGIC, goto errlap;);
* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> The comment at the nesting lock says:
>
> /* Careful for priority inversions here !
> * irlmp->links is never taken while another IrDA
> * spinlock is held, so we are safe. Jean II */
>
> So, under the assumption the author was right, it just needs a lockdep
> annotation.
>
> (depends on patches in -mm for spin_lock_irqsave_nested())
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Ingo
(repost with slightly changed patch)
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 16:12 +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.19-rc5-2avb #2
> - ---------------------------------------------
> pppd/26425 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170
> [irda]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170
> [irda]
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by pppd/26425:
> #0: (&hashbin->hb_spinlock){....}, at: [<dfdea857>]
> irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x37/0x170 [irda]
>
> stack backtrace:
> [<c010413c>] dump_trace+0x1cc/0x200
> [<c010418a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> [<c01047f2>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
> [<c01048c9>] dump_stack+0x19/0x20
> [<c01346ca>] __lock_acquire+0x8fa/0xc20
> [<c0134d2d>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x80
> [<c02a851c>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [<dfdea87a>] irlmp_slsap_inuse+0x5a/0x170 [irda]
> [<dfdebab2>] irlmp_open_lsap+0x62/0x180 [irda]
> [<dfdf35d1>] irttp_open_tsap+0x181/0x230 [irda]
> [<dfdc0c3d>] ircomm_open_tsap+0x5d/0xa0 [ircomm]
> [<dfdc05d8>] ircomm_open+0xb8/0xd0 [ircomm]
> [<dfdd0477>] ircomm_tty_open+0x4f7/0x570 [ircomm_tty]
> [<c020bbe4>] tty_open+0x174/0x340
> [<c016bd69>] chrdev_open+0x89/0x170
> [<c0167bd6>] __dentry_open+0xa6/0x1d0
> [<c0167da5>] nameidata_to_filp+0x35/0x40
> [<c0167df9>] do_filp_open+0x49/0x50
> [<c0167e47>] do_sys_open+0x47/0xd0
> [<c0167f0c>] sys_open+0x1c/0x20
> [<c010307d>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
> [<b7f86410>] 0xb7f86410
> =======================
The comment at the nesting lock says:
/* Careful for priority inversions here !
* irlmp->links is never taken while another IrDA
* spinlock is held, so we are safe. Jean II */
So, under the assumption the author was right, it just needs a lockdep
annotation.
(depends on patches in -mm for spin_lock_irqsave_nested())
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
---
net/irda/irlmp.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-mm.orig/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 09:54:50.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 10:12:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -1678,7 +1678,8 @@ static int irlmp_slsap_inuse(__u8 slsap_
* every IrLAP connection and check every LSAP associated with each
* the connection.
*/
- spin_lock_irqsave(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags);
+ spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags,
+ SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
lap = (struct lap_cb *) hashbin_get_first(irlmp->links);
while (lap != NULL) {
IRDA_ASSERT(lap->magic == LMP_LAP_MAGIC, goto errlap;);
Hi guys,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 10:15:39AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So, under the assumption the author was right, it just needs a lockdep
> annotation.
>
> (depends on patches in -mm for spin_lock_irqsave_nested())
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/irda/irlmp.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-mm.orig/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 09:54:50.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6-mm/net/irda/irlmp.c 2006-11-20 10:12:11.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1678,7 +1678,8 @@ static int irlmp_slsap_inuse(__u8 slsap_
> * every IrLAP connection and check every LSAP associated with each
> * the connection.
> */
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&irlmp->links->hb_spinlock, flags,
> + SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> lap = (struct lap_cb *) hashbin_get_first(irlmp->links);
> while (lap != NULL) {
> IRDA_ASSERT(lap->magic == LMP_LAP_MAGIC, goto errlap;);
This patch got pushed into mainline, while the spin_lock_irq_save_nested()
patches are not there yet. It breaks IrDA as irlmp.c doesn't build.
Linus, could you please revert the corresponding commit
(700f9672c9a61c12334651a94d17ec04620e1976) unless you are planning to pull
the spin_lock_irq_save_nested() patches soon from -mm ?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Cheers,
Samuel.